ManM

Jobar,
I think we share the same the project, but are approaching it from different sides.

Instead of having two distinct spheres in a spirit/matter dualism, I look at the world as a whole. That whole does not contain God, but rather is contained and held in existence by God. He is forever present and fills all things. And so while being transcendent (The God that can be spoken is not the eternal God) in essence, he is intimately near to us.

galiel

Rather, what possible overlap is there between metaphysical naturalist atheism (the focus of this site) and pantheism?

Metaphysical Naturalism/Atheism disbelieves in the existence of *any* supernatural force.

Pantheism is just one of many different twists on supernaturalism. I fail to see where there is *any* convergence. We may be allies in a battle against oppressive institutionalized/organized religion, but we are hardly philosophically akin.

I actually find pantheists who think they are any more rational than monotheists to be quite irritating.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Jobar

"No infinity exists to be demonstrated!" - Leto II, God Emperor of Dune

We cannot see anything infinite- our senses, even amplified by our best instruments, can actually detect no true unendingness. The prospects fade away at measurable distances, and no information can be retrieved from beyond those distances.

And yet- as we become more able to see and know, as we improve our detection technology, the limits of detection seem to expand without bound. We now have a pretty good estimate of the radius of the visible universe- about 15 billion light years. But to explain the origin of the observed universe, our best theorists are now positing a multiverse- wherein universes such as ours are forming and fading like the foam at the crest of a wave, in numbers beyond our knowing. The observable, finite world of metaphysical naturalism seems to require an infinite background.

Our everyday experience of life on Earth is extremely well explained by classical science, with little need of recourse to the precision offered by Einsteinian or quantum physics. Yet, every single time we use Newton's calculus, we must figure in infinity! When I was studying calculus, I often asked how we knew infinity existed. I was given such standard answers as "you can always add 1 to any number, forever" and that we could think of it not as true unendingness, but as a number "becoming arbitrarily large".

In mathematics, infinity exists although we can never count to it. Why is it any stretch to believe that in reality- which seems to be modelled so marvelously well by our mathematics- infinity exists although we can never see it?

I realize my position, if true, is inherently unfalsifiable- but if it is false it is not! I say that we can never come to a complete and unlimited understanding of reality- IOW, infinity *does* exist, and existence is infinite. If I am right, no matter how great our powers to see and know may become, there is always more which we cannot observe. Yet, because one more advance of our powers might detect the end of infinity- it is still possible I am wrong!

This is the same as saying that anything we detect is part of nature. All we can see is natural, and to call something 'supernatural' means we have simply not observed it. I need not 'believe' in any *thing* supernatural. I see nothing beyond nature. Yet for nature to exist at all, it seems we may require things unseen and unknown.

Galiel and RD, I come to this conclusion, not through contemplating my navel, but through the hardest of sciences. My attempts to understand nature leads me to conclusions which sound astonishingly similar to the conclusions reached by those who do 'contemplate their navels'. If the widely disparate investigations of reality, science and mysticism, seem to reach similar answers- well, I am a practical man, and I will treat those answers as correct until they are disproved!

Answerer, the title of this thread comes from me telling Amos that his attempts to explain reality in the terms of Catholic mysticism seemed to me as needlessly complex as trying to do quantum mechanics in Chinese, instead of mathematical notation. I still think so; all his talk of Parousias and second comings and souls and such seems pointless and unnecessary. But just occasionally, he comes up with answers to metaphysical questions which, once one deciphers his jargon, seem identical with the ones I get. (It may be just that a stopped clock is right twice a day- but I think that he is following a path city blocks long, roundabout and convoluted, to reach a point I get to in fairly direct wise.)

garthoverman

Jobar-

I imagine you read a lot of books. Have you ever read any of the "Seth" material by Jane Roberts? I find those texts illuminating if not only elucidating.

galiel

This is a popular misconception based on misuse of purely theoretical analog thought-tools such as quantum entanglement and Heisenberg. There are no "similar" answers, because science and mysticism address different questions. In addition, the "laws of nature" which science posits are not absolute physical properties inherent in the "fabric of the universe", per se, they are merely models, approximations, translations of phenomena outside the bandwidth of normal human perception into analogs that we are more familiar with. They have emerged due to mathematical calculations, not revelation, and continue to be fine-tuned, because of their utility in explaining phenomena within human experience. And they have no more in common with 'ancient mystical wisdom' than a newspaper horoscope has with human psychology.

It reminds me of the time my sister, who used to subscribe to mystical Druid nonsense and rejected all science as "bogus", came running into the room because she heard a radio news feature about how trees were discovered to have chemical warnings which they send to neighboring trees when attacked by a predatory insect. She said: "See, I knew 'they' would have to admit it! Trees can talk! They can communicate! They have feelings!"

You can't have you cake and eat it, too. You can't appropriate only those aspects of science which appeal to you and reject the rest, or your science falls apart.

Quantum philosophy and all the new-age attempts to reconcile mysticism to science are pure bunk, and do a real disservice to popular scientific understanding.

For a much more thorough debunking of it than I have time or patience for, check out Victor Stenger's writings. His home page is at:

<a href="http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/" target="_blank">http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/</a>

Jayhawker Soule

No, it's inherently unintelligible.

• You talk about "the thesis of theism and the antithesis of atheism" and presume that you've said something.
• You assert that "The observable, finite world of metaphysical naturalism seems to require an infinite background.", and presume that you've said something.
• You suggest that "for nature to exist at all, it seems we may require things unseen and unknown.", and presume that you've said something.

What are these mystical "things unseen and unknown", presumably inaccessible to metaphysical naturalism, and yet, you assure us, not 'supernatural'?

Jayhawker Soule

You mean we're not 'all connected'. So much for motorcycle repair. BTW, nice link.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Devilnaut

Thanks for the reply, Amos.

Jobar

In fact, I have met Victor Stengler, and have a signed copy of his "The Unconscious Quantum".

I also have a degree in Physics from Georgia Tech, 1977, and a minor in philosophy. Although I have never been a working scientist, and make no claim to any sort of original ideas in any of my posts here, I *am* qualified to talk about these topics. I am not just talking out my ass. (And I was quite open about my pantheism when I was made a moderator of this forum. I can tell you frankly that some of the admins are also pantheists, or are atheists or agnostics who have no argument with pantheism- they, like me, think that the ideas and arguments for one can also support the other. The Buddha was actually an agnostic, I think.)

Note that I have not said anything directly about consciousness here. Oh, there are good pantheistic arguments to be made concerning consciousness, but I avoid speaking of it here precisely to avoid Stengler's objections (which, I agree, are highly technical and too complex for me to want to address them on this thread.) I think I can explain pantheism with physics, and need not refer to psychology.

Galiel, you are wrong that science and mysticism address completely different questions. They use different methods, certainly; to state it somewhat simplistically, scientists look outward at reality, and mystics look inward at reality. One is mainly objective, the other mainly subjective. Both, however, attempt to observe and model the wordless and unnumbered world we perceive. And though it may be argued that the models each create may not actually be as similar as I contend they are, I state with great confidence that the questions being asked- What is matter? What is movement? How is it that there is this universe of observation? Where do humans come from? Many others, too- are asked by both mystics and scientists. (Of course there are also questions which are asked by scientists which are not by mystics, and vice versa. But the attempt to model and understand reality is common to both.)

When I started this topic, I actually intended to address the theists here. The title is after all from something I said to Amos- and I have not yet replied to his response. So galiel and RD, if you would, let us continue our discussion on the atheism vs. pantheism thread.

Oh yes- hi garthoverman. I have not read anything by Roberts, and as I have told you before, I view her as just another charlatan. While conmen are certainly able to speak the words of wise men, I am of the opinion that reincarnation, and the existence of spirits, are simply untruths. They cannot be demonstrated in any reliable way, and if they were factual they should be readily demonstrable. I don't doubt that there is good advice and even wisdom to be found in Seth's 'sermons', but the final purpose of those sermons is not to impart wisdom, but to extract money from the gullible. Hey, Jerry Falwell occasionally writes or says wise things, maybe- but I am *not* going to buy his books, or attend his sermons!

Poets, priests and politicians
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for your submission
And no one's jammin' their transmissions!
-The Police

Now! Amos, I believe I understand why you used the word 'futuristic'- according to Catholic dogma, the state of union with ultimate being is heaven, right? But I understand you to be saying that in your own view, this Beatific Vision can be attained in this body- or at least I think you are saying that. Please, when you answer me, remember that I was not raised Catholic and do not understand a lot of your terminology- for instance, can you give me a simple definition of Parousia? Mr. Webster can tell me nothing about it.

Amos

My first comment is that Buddha was never an agnostic because he was gnostic by defintion of the word Buddha. The Buddha knows because for him truth has arrived (tathagata). Buddha is a seer of truth (and cannot dream). So please, explain how Buddha can be both agnostic and gnostic unless agnostics want him to be like they are.

No, your words "at that point we may say" sound futuristic because if they were past tense you would have said "at that point we did say." My point was that is does not have to be in the future especially not since many Catholics did have a Beatific Vision and therefore we have what is known as "the Church Triumphant." This also means that it is obviously not Catholic theology that we must physically die first but it is Christian theology (protestant as distinct form Catholic) that we must physically die before we can have a Beatific Vision.

Parousia is commonly held to be the second coming of Christ but it is a Greek word that describes the final ousia. An ousia (Metaphisics 1059a18) is an eiditic concept (Plato's Seventh Epistle 342 a-b) that humans can have of an image which in Buddhism would be called the suchness and thatness of an image. The are all the same and if an ousia is wisdom, parousia is the final vision of the whole or Ultimate wisdom . So the final or Parousia is like the last, or Ultimate Form, of the Good --which was Plato's term. I threw in the final mass or Christ-mass to be equal to the Parousia which is equal to second coming of Christ.

I will add that I stretch some of these words but maybe that is because I did some Contemplative logic.